A brief history of energy

The energy news in New England isn’t great. Electricity prices are expected to rise 9.6% this summer relative to last. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline in Massachusetts last week was $3.68, up 4% from the same period in 2013. In this recent brutal winter of polar vortexes, extreme, extended cold pushed our heating bills through the roof. And while natural gas at the central Pennsylvania hub was $3.37 per million BTUs, it was $24.09 in Boston. (This is due to a lack of pipeline capacity, a situation that towns along the northern tier of Massachusetts are striving to perpetuate).

Why the concern over energy prices? Because energy is at the very root of the economy. High energy costs destroy job growth, increase the cost of everything we consume, and act as a terribly regressive tax on the poor and middle class. Since you will be asked to make many decisions, both politically as a voter and commercially as a consumer, it is worthwhile to understand and consider energy carefully.

We are often presented with a menu of energy types with a dizzying array of sources. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, oil, natural gas, coal, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, tidal – and each with multiple variations, it’s enough to make your eyes cross. Let’s go back to basics.  

According to current thinking, the universe sprang into existence nearly 14 billion years ago in a blinding flash of pure energy. Within a fraction of a fraction of a second, this energy expanded in all directions, slowly coalesced and began to form matter. As we can tell from Hubble Space telescope images, great spiral galaxies formed, organizing and spinning and creating vast numbers of stars, each a microcosm of spinning planets and moons. The universe is a vast playground of energy, mainly star fusion and angular momentum (spin).

Let’s take a brief tour of our plethora of energy sources here on Earth.  

Solar. Our star, like all stars, creates heat and light from a process of nuclear fusion, where hydrogen atoms, under great pressure, fuse to create helium, thereby releasing energy. Deep within the star, heavier elements are produced in this enormous furnace, such as iron and uranium. Here on earth, we can collect radiated solar energy and convert it directly to electricity or use it for heating water. Solar energy is available, of course, only when the sun shines. Clouds and dark of night necessitate the use of storage or alternative energy sources.

Wind. Believe it or not, this is also fusion (solar) energy. The sun heats the land, the sea, and our atmosphere creating great currents of air. The wind blows because of the sun. If our planet hung in a dark, cold, void of space, there would be no wind.

Hydroelectric. Surprise, also fusion (solar). While some would say that this is gravitational energy, gravity is not an energy source. The water that falls must have been raised in the first place. As the sun evaporates water into the atmosphere, it eventually falls as snow or rain. Lifted by the sun, the water now flows through lakes and rivers and dams and generates electricity.

Fossil. Now you’re beginning to get it - also solar fusion. Over a billion years, the sun’s rays bathed the earth. Trillions of tons of bacteria and plankton and grasses and trees and animal life thrived, died, decayed, and became buried under hundreds and thousands of feet of rock and sand. Compressed and cooked, this biological mass stored the solar energy that originally created it in the form of natural gas, oil, and coal. Fossil fuels, because of their concentration, have an extremely high energy density which is why they are among our cheapest fuels.

Biomass. As the sun shines on corn or sugarcane or a number of other fuel crops, fusion energy is converted to organic compounds by photosynthesis. This stored solar energy can then be processed into fuel. This technology can also be adapted to bacteria and plankton. Biofuels have the potential to create cheap, plentiful fuel, but if we’re not careful, can compete with foodstocks thereby driving up food prices.

Nuclear. Yes, solar fusion energy, though not from our star. Other, older stars created radioactive elements which were incorporated into the crust of our earth when it was formed. We can mine uranium, for instance, to create power by nuclear fission. As we know from Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, this presents risks. Properly managed, nuclear energy can provide vast amounts of power with no effluents other than radioactive waste (not to be minimized, this waste can be very dangerous). The holy grail of nuclear researchers is to create fusion reactors, the same as in the stars. This would be much safer and cleaner than nuclear fission.

Geothermal. Another byproduct of solar fusion. According to the Department of Energy, 80% of geothermal energy comes from the decomposition of radioactive elements in the earth’s crust (which originated in a solar furnace). The remaining 20% is residual heat from the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. Geothermal energy can produce gases and pollutants from fluids withdrawn from the earth, but most geothermal plants contain emission control systems.

Tidal. There is great potential for capturing the energy of tidal currents for power generation. While opponents decry the potential impact on navigation and sea life, supporters proclaim the virtue of clean, sustainable power. Unlike solar energy, the tides run day and night. This energy source is not from solar fusion – it is much older. Look at the Hubble spiral galaxy image again. The amount of rotational energy stored in the universe is immense. Part of that energy is represented by the moon’s orbit around the earth, dragging the tides with it as it goes. Tidal energy is as old as the universe itself.

This is just a brief overview of energy and its sources. You owe it to yourself to become informed. Understand that all energy enterprises have risks and benefits. Become familiar with such concepts as reliability, renewability, and sustainability. Appreciate the impact of energy costs on jobs and the cost of living.

Energy is too important, too fundamental to our survival, to deserve less.

We have so little time to thank them

There is so much of import that deserves mention. The VA secret waiting list scandal. The stock market ascending to record heights. Kim and Kanye’s wedding.

But this week is the seventieth anniversary of D Day, when 156,000 allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy on one single day, June 6, 1944. The fresh faced boys who slugged their way into Europe are now in their late eighties and nineties. The ones who are still with us remember.

It was an enormous undertaking, hard to fathom. The front stretched from the Cherbourg Peninsula to the Orne River, some sixty miles. That is approximately the length of Cape Cod, from Falmouth to Provincetown. It involved thousands of naval vessels, tens of thousands of aircraft sorties, and ingenious artificial ports to protect offloading cargo ships from the fury of the storm tossed English Channel. Over 13,000 paratroopers and nearly 4,000 glider troops added muscle behind the lines.

The order of battle was simple: “You will enter the continent of Europe and, in conjunction with the other Allied nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces.” This was the pivotal moment of the war in Europe. Till now, Germany had been stubbornly victorious.

The atmosphere of the time was grim. The Germans were known to be developing secret weapons in Norway and at Pennemunde in the Baltics and other locations. It was feared that bacteriological agents, nuclear bombs, and new unmanned rockets were all being created and refined for Hitler’s portfolio. The cost of failure would “carry consequences that would be almost fatal,” according to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, causing “a setback to Allied morale and determination… so profound that it would be beyond calculation.”

Russia, a fickle ally then as much as an enigma now, was closely watching. The overall strategy of the European conflict was to press Germany from both the east and the west. Russia had held up her end of the bargain, losing millions of casualties as the cost of pushing German forces from Ukraine and Belorussia. But the agreement made between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at the Teheran Conference in 1943 was that America and Great Britain would open the western front with a cross-channel invasion. If we failed, it was feared that Russia would consider a separate peace with Hitler and withdraw from hostilities. In that event, an Allied victory would become sharply improbable.

It was with this background that southern England became a huge staging area in the spring of 1944. Hundreds of thousands of troops camped, trained, and prepared. Millions of pounds of materials and supplies were moved near ports. (Each division would require 700 tons of supplies per day while in combat and 47 divisions were to land.) The impact on the British populace was massive. Coastal shipping and ferries were diverted to the logistical effort, as were many railways. Their meager rations were further cut, travel was nearly impossible, and their fields and gardens were trampled underfoot as soldiers and supplies were staged. But in view of the consequences, these privations were cheerfully accepted.

The precise day of the landing was a bit slippery. First agreed in Teheran to be in May, the plan was changed to target early June. This was due largely to the challenge of amassing the necessary landing craft, but also to allow time for preparatory air attacks. These were intended to cripple critical transportation facilities in France to impede the  flow of German troops and to soften German defenses. Accordingly, “D Day” was moved to early June, with moonrise, sunrise, and tides dictating the 5th through the 7th. A fierce storm was forecast for that entire period, and it was feared that the invasion might need be delayed until the next favorable astronomical period in late June. The 5th of June dawned dark and stormy with wave-tossed seas, low clouds, and wind-blown, horizontal rain.

But later that night, a pause in the winds, a glimmer of starlight, a respite. June 6th it was to be.

The rest we know. Steven Speilberg and Tom Hanks documented the terror, mortality, and grim determination of that day in “Saving Private Ryan,” as did John Wayne in “The Longest Day.”

There can be no end to the thanks we owe. These veterans, few and fewer each day, deserve to be thanked and recognized and praised. Find them, and do it.

Rewriting the language of life

E. Coli bacteria

The familiar, idyllic scenery outside your door, bucolic in the spring sunshine, is exceedingly weird. And so are you.

What seems ordinary to us, an oak tree, daffodil, blade of grass, or your own body, is made of atoms forged in the furnace of early, distant stars. And these atoms are nearly entirely empty space, vacuum, with only a few protons and neutrons and electrons forming actual matter.

That’s right, your body is more than 99.9999% empty space, and the reason you don’t sink through your chair is that the electrostatic charge of the atoms in the chair repels the atoms of your body.

What’s the point? Only that things are often stranger than they seem.

Take living things, for instance. DNA is often called the blueprint of life. Think of DNA as a construction and operation manual that tells a dandelion how to be a dandelion, a whale a whale, or a you to be human. The instructions in your DNA account for your height, hair color, gender and also control the ongoing operation of your body. This is the miracle of life.

So it was a bit of a surprise earlier this month when synthetic biologists at the Scripps Research Institute announced  they had created bacteria containing artificial DNA. A biochemist not involved in the project, Steven Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida,  summed up the shocking finding: “Most people thought this wasn’t possible.”

Think of DNA as a kind of computer program. It is information that regulates how amino acids and proteins, the basis of life, are produced. The researchers at Scripps, led by chemical biologist Floyd Romesberg, have found a way to rewrite that program and have created bacteria which live, grow, and reproduce utilizing segments of man-made, artificial DNA. The descendant bacteria also contain the artificial DNA, and pass it on to their successors.

The point of all this is that bacteria can now be programmed to produce a greatly expanded range of amino acids and proteins. Applications range from new cancer drugs to improved vaccines or even anticounterfeiting, improved forensics, and the efficient production of biofuels. The opportunities are mind boggling.

Even before the achievement of artificial DNA, scientists had become quite capable. According to the Wall Street Journal, “With growing mastery, scientists have been tinkering with this natural information-storage system that is found inside every cell. They routinely cut and splice normal DNA to alter plants, bacteria and animals. They have used its ultraminiature storage capacity to encode books, poems and popular music. They even have programmed DNA to perform computer-like calculations.” (Man-Made DNA Opens Doors, 5/8/2014).

But the Scripps accomplishment opens the door to much greater control and specificity. While current gene manipulation relies on repurposing natural DNA, the advent of artificial DNA greatly expands the designer’s pallet. The natural e. coli bacteria used in this experiment can produce 20 amino acids. When augmented with the Scripps artificial DNA, they can create 172 amino acids. Since proteins are built from amino acids, the scope of protein creation is greatly extended.

There are safety concerns. A number of environmental groups had asked that this research be shut down until the safety aspects could be more fully assessed. But a review by the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues found no reason to call a halt. Their reasoning was that while the technique added some elements to the language of life, it did not fundamentally change the life process. The Scripps researchers did, however, add a safety feature. Their bacteria were designed to grow only in the presence of a specific chemical additive. In the absence of this additive, the bacteria would stop creating artificial DNA, thereby making escape to the wild highly unlikely.

In the end, whenever we think we have a handle on science, it surprises us. This achievement promises great advances in medical science and many other areas. Perhaps even the holy grail, that being the efficient conversion of carbon dioxide directly into biofuel. What a wonderful outcome, should it come to pass.

Math is the Path to the Middle Class

It was great news for Rhode Island recently. General Dynamics Electric Boat has been awarded a $17.6 billion contract to build ten Virginia-class attack submarines and the Quonset Point facility will be adding 450 jobs. Some commuting workers from Massachusetts may benefit as well.

This is consistent with President Obama’s pledge to build the economy from “the middle out.” The wages from these jobs would inject an additional $30 million into the local economy with beneficial ripple effects (the “multiplier”) boosting barbers and bakers and candlestick makers.

But not so fast. Once of the most common positions on the Electric Boat website is a “QP Inside Machinist.” This job is described as follows:

“Set up, program editing and operation of CNC milling and turning centers. Verifying part configuration to plan requirements using various high tolerance precision measuring tools; must be able to work independently and with minimum supervision.”

From the list of qualifying requirements, this one stands out: Strong mathematical skills in geometry & trigonometry preferred.

Oops. How skilled are our recent high school grades in math? Are they ready for the rigors of the workplace? Or, rather, have they succumbed to our cultural aversion to math?

In Hollywood, only geeks and geniuses (e.g., Matt Damon in “Good Will Hunting”) are good at math. The cool kids steer clear. It’s too hard. It’s not cool. It’s the butt of jokes.

But as can be seen, math may be a qualifying requirement for a well-paying middle class job. And as our information-based economy continues to unfold, this will be increasingly true.

Long gone are the days when one can make a good wage based on the sweat of one’s brow. Lifting 50 pound bags of flour is now relegated to pallet jacks, with a single operator displacing dozens of Italian immigrant mothers who had previously been paid to stack tons of goods. We hate technology, but each of us with a smart phone is embracing it. The workplace has changed.

But have our cultural and educational systems changed apace? Has mathematical literacy, numeracy, become increasingly desirable and culturally acceptable? Alas, it has not.

It is shockingly apparent that we have not prepared our kids for the new workplace. They believe math is hard, uncool, geeky, and hence, avoid it. But if the alternative is a minimum wage job as a barista, are we serving them well?

A plethora of studies have shown that high school math skills are correlated to higher earnings later in life. And not just earnings, math ability also eases our way through the increasingly complex thicket of everyday life. A 2013 study done by researchers at Princeton University found that in the financial meltdown of 2008, poor basic math skills correlated strongly with mortgage defaults. Controlling for all other factors (age, ethnicity, education, household income), the researchers studied hundreds of subprime mortgages across New England. Their findings were surprising in that it wasn’t specifically the choice of mortgage contract that led to default, but rather other life behaviors indicating poor overall financial decision making.

How to motivate kids to learn math and teach them more effectively?

One whimsical thought is that if only the media, Hollywood, and sports idols could embrace this cause, things might be different. We have shifted culturally against smoking tobacco and in favor of gay rights, why not a campaign to make math acceptable? It’s too easy to laugh at math geeks, as witnessed by “The Big Bang Theory” whose innumerate character played by Kaley Cuoco wins our affection.

A more serious route being debated by educators is to teach math in context. For instance, high schoolers should be taught basic financial skills and, in the process, exponents and logarithms. That is how interest calculations and amortization tables are made, why not learn how in context and not as part of an abstract course in algebra? This could be amplified by having chemistry and biology teachers, for instance, explaining the math required to understand their subject matters.

After all, math was not invented as an abstract topic. Fractions were an outgrowth of commerce, where early merchants needed to portion out fractional bushels of grain or wheels of cheese. Multiplying 2/3 times 4 was a practical exercise, not something dreamed up to torture a fourth grader.  Likewise, geometry and trigonometry were developed from the building trades and nautical navigation, not as an abstract brain teaser for high schoolers.

This won’t be solved anytime soon, but we must make numeracy a top goal. Those well-paying jobs at Electric Boat are awaiting.

You can die of a broken heart and other surprising science

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

In 1899, the Commissioner of the US Patent Office, Charles H. Duell, is said to have exhorted that “everything that can be invented has been invented.” While possibly apocryphal, it was a common sentiment of the time. After all, electricity had been tamed, the light bulb had replaced whale oil lamps, powerful steam locomotives traversed the continent, and Herman Hollerith had developed the Census Tabulating Machine. Indeed, what else could possibly be left to invent?

In retrospect, we see how silly was that view. But that is the nature of scientific certitude. Science is an ongoing process. Things we hold to be true are only working models of reality, and reality is often more complex or strange than we think. When our models (theories) disagree with reality, we must quickly develop new theories.

Science, that is, our view of reality, changes all of the time. For instance, here are a handful of new theories published in just the last few months.

• You can literally die of a broken heart. Researchers in the U.K. studied 30,000 people whose spouses had died and found a significant (nearly double) risk of heart attack or stroke. This risk fades in subsequent months and is correlated with higher levels of inflammatory cells in the blood (which gradually return to normal). (JAMA Internal Medicine, April 2014)

• We may have company in other dimensions. Researchers using a sophisticated telescope in Antarctica have for the first time discovered primordial gravitational waves, thus buttressing the case for inflationary expansion. This theory posits that during the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the universe expanded from an invisible speck to near its current size. If true, our universe may be “one of many universes floating like bubbles in a glass of champagne.” (Scientific American, March 31, 2014). 

• Beans beat beef, but even then in temperance. Two recent studies support a theory that too much protein has negative effects on human health. The primary study found that people age 50-65, with a diet where protein is restricted to 10% of total calories, suffered cancer and diabetes at significantly lower rates. Those eating a moderate protein diet (up to 19%), were three times more likely to die from cancer. Oddly enough, the effect reversed after age 65, when a moderate protein diet seems slightly protective. In good news for vegetarians, vegetable protein was found to be more healthy than animal protein overall. (Cell Metabolism, March 2014)

• Dark skin is evolutionarily superior in the tropics. An English researcher studying 40 years of data found that albinos living in areas of high ultraviolet radiation (e.g., Africa, Central America) contract skin cancer and often die young before reproducing. Theorizing that early hominids were pale skinned and largely hairless (to control body temperature in tropical heat), he proposes that nonmelanoma skin cancers killed the lighter skinned and spared the darker skinned. This evolutionary force self-selected dark skin as a superior attribute for survival. (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, January 2014)

• Death rays may not be just science fiction. Physicists at the University of Maryland have demonstrated a one-two combo punch that opens the way for laser weapons. High power lasers tend to heat the atmosphere as they pass through it. The low-density air thus created acts like a lens, defocusing and weakening the beam. Instead, by pulsing a low-power laser several times over 7 billionths of a second, a “tunnel in the sky” is created through which a high energy blast could follow. In addition to death rays, such technology could be used to power high altitude aircraft. (Physical Review X, February 2014)

Science is constantly evolving, constantly surprising. To not be open to multiple possibilities is crippling to a scientist. A close-minded scientist is like a blind marksman; brilliant, perhaps, but unable to hit a moving target. That is why the most prized scientific quality is a finely honed sense of skepticism.

A major mistake for a serious scientist is to follow the herd, but it is oh so hard to resist. Usually grants and funding follow the herd; taking another path can lead to poverty. Disagreeing with the herd will also get you shunned, criticized, and sometimes demonized. For instance, Professor Lawrence Torcello seriously proposes jailing those who disagree with him on climate science.

Here’s a famous example. Dr. Barry Marshall and research partner Robin Warren were all alone in their thinking. The entire world’s scientific community ridiculed their theory, but they persevered. Peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria, not spicy foods or stress. Next time you get a simple antibiotic to cure one, won’t you be glad that they remained steadfast?